Images de page

though he be not the only supreme God; nor can any, with reason, attempt to prove him to be such, from his works and office as king of his church, since it is implied, that as such he must do homage to God the Father, in delivering up his kingdom to him. And this very expression, to God the Father, makes it plain, that there is no God the Son in the same sense, or in the same supreme essence with the Father; because, if there were, then he ought not to be excluded from his glory of having such open homage paid to him, which is here appropriated to the Father only. And since the Apostle speaks of the same God, (whom he explains to be the Father,) to the end of this discourse, and says he shall be all in all, how evidently does he shew him to be far beyond all that are not God the Father, whatever character else they bear? So then, Jesus Christ, in his highest capacity, being inferior to the Father, how can he be the same God, to which he is subject, or of the same rank and dignity?

Thus it appears that Christ is so God, as to be under a superior God, who has set him over all. And suitable to this is that account, which the Scripture gives us of the Godhead of the blessed Jesus, viz. because he is invested with a godlike authority and power from the supreme God his Father. Thus, when he was accused by the captious Jews for assuming the character of the Son of God, John x. 35, 36, which they perversely would stretch, as though it implied an

equality with God, he explains in what sense only he justified it, viz. as one whom the Father had sanctified, that is, called to a greater office, and honoured with a higher commission than those magistrates, op whom the Scripture so freely bestows the title of Gods. So when he is called God, it is explained in what sepse, or of what sort of God. Heb. i. 8, 9. It is to be understood, by saying, that his God, (intimating that he had a God over him,) had anointed him with oil, &c. that is, had invested him with royal power and dignity, (as kings were installed in their office, by anointing with oil, among the Jews,) which is an explication of his Godhead or dominion. And this is said to be above his fellows, not sure above the Father and Holy Spirit, (which only are pretended to be his fellows, as God, by them who understand it of the supreme Godhead,) but above all other subordinate powers. This is one plain scripture account of his being called God, for these things are spoken to him, and of him, under the character of God; “O God, thy throne,” &c. I think men should be well assured on what grounds they go, before they assign other reasons of this character, so different from the Scripture account. Let it suffice us, that God hath “ made him both Lord and Christ;" Acts ii. 36. that he has "exalted him to be a Prince and Saviour.” Acts v. 31.

However, our adversaries will gain nothing by alleging texts to prove the title of God to be given to Christ, since that may be; and yet it will not prove him to be the supreme independent God, but only one, who is inhabited, and commissioned, and enabled by him who is so. As to that place, which is corruptly rendered in our translation," he thought it no robbery to be equal with God;" Phil. ii. 6. it is confessed by our adversaries themselves, that it should be read thus, viz. that he did not assume, or arrogate, or snatch at an equality with God, or covet to appear in the likeness of God ;* the words are never known to be used in any other sense, as is shewn by Dr Tillotson in his Discourses against the Socinians; also by Dr Whitby in his exposition on that place; and others. So that this rather denies than asserts Christ's equality to God, though he was in the form of God, as that notes the outward resemblance of him in his mighty power and works, which is the constant meaning of the word form in the New Testament.

But because some think such perfections are in Scripture ascribed to Christ, as will prove him to be

* One reason, why I think, what we render, to be equal with God, may be translated to be like God, is, that the word ioos admits degrees of comparison, ισότερος, ισότατος. Now a strict arithmetical equality consists in an exact point; and no things can be more or less equal, than what exactly are so; but things may be more or less alike ; and therefore though things that be alike, may be equal, yet they are not hereby proved, or expressed to be so. See Dr Whitby in locum, who instances in several places, where the word loos is so used. T. E.

+ Dr Bennet's New Theory, cap. 7. Dr Marshal's Sermon on this fext.

God in the highest sense, I proceed to show in the next place,

Thirdly, That our blessed Lord Jesus disclaims those infinite perfections which belong only to the supreme God of Gods. And it is most certain, that if he want one, or any of these perfections, that are essential to the Deity, he is not God in the chief sense; and if we find him disclaiming the one, he cannot challenge the other ; for to deny himself to have all divine perfections, or to deny himself to be the infinite God, is the same thing.


SECTION I. Our Lord Jesus disclaims those infinite Perfections

which belong only to the Supreme God. 1. Underived Power. 2. Absolute Goodness. 3. Unlimited Knowledge. First, One great and peculiar perfection of the Deity is absolute, underived omnipotence ; he, who cannot work all miracles, and do whatever he list of himself, without help from another, can never be the supreme Being, or God; because he appears to be a defective being, comparatively, since he needs help, and can receive additional strength from another than himself.

Now it is most evident, that our Lord Jesus, whatever power he had, confesses again and again, that he had not infinite power of himself. “Of myself I can do nothing." John v. 30. He had been speaking of great miracles, viz. raising the dead, and executing all judgment; but all along takes care men should know that his sufficiency for these things was of God the Father. In the beginning of the discourse, he says, “ The Son can do nothing but what he sees the Father do;" John v. 19. So in the middle, “The Father has given to the Son to have life in himself” ; ver. 26, 27. And as if he could never too much inculcate this great truth, he adds towards the conclusion, “I can do nothing of myself,” ar & uavtoở; or, from nothing that is my self do I draw this power and authority. Sure, this is not the voice of God, but of a man! For the Most High can receive from none; he cannot be made more mighty, or wise, because to absolute perfection can be no addition. Rom. xi. 35. And since power in God is an essential perfection; it follows, that if it be derived, then so is the essence or being itself; which is blasphemy against the Most High, for it is to ungod him; to number him among dependent derivative beings; whilst the supreme God indeed is only he, who is the first cause, and absolute original of all.

Nay, further, our Lord considers himself here in opposition to his Father; who, he says, gave him all power. Now if he had such an eternal divine Word,

« PrécédentContinuer »